CAA Report. 1 November Marcia Rieke & Steve Ritz CAA Co-Chairs. CAA reports to the BPA and the SSB

Transcription

1 CAA Report 1 November 2017 Marcia Rieke & Steve Ritz CAA Co-Chairs CAA reports to the BPA and the SSB Disclaimer: These slides represent a personal assessment of the issues discussed by the CAA. This document should not be cited or quoted because the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of CAA, SSB, BPA, or the NRC. CAA Report November

2 CAA Membership Marcia J. Rieke (NAS), Co-Chair, University of Arizona Steven M. Ritz, Co-Chair, University of California, Santa Cruz Jeremiah K. Darling, University of Colorado, Boulder Megan Donahue, Michigan State University Thomas Greene, NASA Ames Research Center Lee W. Hartmann, University of Michigan Vassiliki Kalogera, Northwestern University Bruce Macintosh, Stanford University Most recent meeting: October Christopher F. McKee (NAS), University of California, Berkeley Angela V. Olinto, University of Chicago Mark M. Phillips, Carnegie Institution for Science James M. Stone, Princeton University Alexey Vikhlinin, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Eric M. Wilcots, University of Wisconsin, Madison A. Thomas Young (NAE), Lockheed Martin (Ret.) BPA_ CAA Report November

3 Summary of Recent Activities Report on Small Explorers (SMEX) Opportunities released June 8. A good existence proof that the new Statement of Task works An eventful and productive meeting last week: Discussions with Agencies on a variety of topics, including Decadal Survey Timing and Scope (see 2 November discussion, joint with BPA). Survey preparation is the main ongoing CAA focus. AAS and AIP community demographics survey data and plans Science talk by committee member Vicki Kalogera on GW Gravitational wave studies moving from physics experiments to astronomy/astrophysics observatories WFIRST Independent External Technical/ Management/Cost Review (WIETR) Report presentation and discussion. CAA Report November

4 WIETR WFIRST Independent External Technical/Management/Cost Review. O. Figueroa and P.F. Michelson co-chairs Review committee included people familiar with dark energy research, coronagraphs and exoplanet research, engineering experts, management and costing experts See and memo from Thomas Zurbuchen linked there: Slides available here: WIETR Report not yet released. CAA members commended NASA for acting on the recommendations in the Mid-decadal Report and the Evaluation of the Implementation of WFIRST/AFTA in the Context of New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Harrison) Report. CAA Report November

5 WIETR Terms of Reference (TOR) Terms of Reference Questions The WIETR panel was charged by NASA SMD Associate Administrator Thomas Zurbuchen to conduct an assessment of the WFIRST Project that addressed the following questions: A. Are the technical requirements understood and reasonable? a. Are the technical requirements aligned with the mission s science goals? b. Are there any (obvious) science/technical requirements descopes that the Project should consider that could result in acceptable science return as well as lower cost, earlier launch, or reduced risk? B. Are the scope and cost/schedule understood and aligned? a. What is the likely range of probable cost and schedule, and what are the drivers? b. How do non-optimal funding profiles affect the cost/schedule of the mission? What is the impact of staying within the funding profile guidelines and KDP-A total cost guidelines? c. Are there any (obvious) design/acquisition/technical trades that the Project should conduct that could result in lower cost, earlier launch, reduced cost of science and mission operations, or reduced technical risk? C. Are the management processes in place adequate for a project of this scope and complexity? D. Are the benefits of the coronagraph to NASA objectives commensurate with the cost and cost risk of development? a. Are the science/technical requirements, resource (budget, schedule) allocation, and risk posture appropriate for a technology demonstration instrument? b. Does the technology demonstration require a space mission? c. What are the cost and schedule savings (if any) of removing the coronagraph from the mission at this stage? This presentation focuses on the WIETR answers to TOR Question B, the answers to which encompass key aspects and findings of the other TOR questions. 3 CAA Report Nov 1,

6 The management agreement signed at KDP-A for the WFIRST life-cycle cost and the budget profile provided as guidance to the Project are inconsistent with the scope, requirements, and the appropriate risk classification for the mission. There is an urgent need (before the SRR/MDR) for NASA to conduct a top-to-bottom cost-benefit assessment to balance scope, complexity, and the available resources. The WIETR found the following: Technical requirements are understood but incompatible with the guideline resources provided to the Project and are therefore unreasonable. Scope and cost are not aligned. Key internal processes are adequate, but NASA governance and application of policy need improvement. There are benefits to developing coronagraph technologies that are consistent with NASA s longer-term objectives for the Exoplanet Exploration Program (ExEP). Accommodation of the coronagraph, however, has been a mission system design and programmatic driver through formulation and will continue to be a driver, with concomitant risks, to the primary mission well into the WFIRST verification and validation program. The WIETR concludes therefore that although the scope is understood, as designed, the risks to the primary mission of WFIRST are significant and therefore the mission is not executable without adjustments and/or additional resources. CAA Report November

7 WFIRST Project s Design Model Costs from Decadal to Current (FY18$B) NOTES: 1. The bar chart is provided to illustrate the evolution and differences in scope and other parameters. 2. All estimates prior to WIETR are based on ideal budget profiles at a pre-phase A level of maturity WFIRST JDEM Omega Cost Analysis and Technical Evaluation estimate was $1.9B (FY18$). 4. The 2017 WIETR column shows the Budget Option 1, as submitted by the Project in FY17 (PPBE19), which constrains the profile in FY18 and FY CAA Report Nov 1,

8 WFIRST Moving Forward See Zurbuchen memo. NASA HQ directed the Project to undertake a design modification study to reduce mission cost and complexity, while still meeting/exceeding science priorities in the 2010 Decadal (NWNH), and to report in February. The coronagraph will be classified as a technology demonstration. The CAA anticipates hearing from the WFIRST Project and NASA HQ about proposed changes and science capabilities at, or prior to, its March meeting. CAA Report November

9 WIETR Membership CAA Report Nov 1,

10 Additional Items Continuing attention to Mid-decadal Report recommendation: RECOMMENDATION 3-2: The NSF and the National Science Board should consider actions that would preserve the ability of the astronomical community to fully exploit the Foundation s capital investments in ALMA, DKIST, LSST, and other facilities. Without such action, the community will be unable to do so because at current budget levels the anticipated facilities operations costs are not consistent with the program balance that ensures scientific productivity. CAA Report November

11 Discussion CAA Report November